Sunday, November 18, 2007

I recently had the opportunity to experience the "Roman Art From The Louvre" exhibition at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. The exhibition contains 184 Roman works from the 1st century B.C. thru the 4th century A.D. These works represent the largest number of loaned pieces from the Louvre for any single show ever. For anyone that is unlikely to travel to Paris to see these items at their permanent home, this is an excellent opportunity to see such a large number of excellent examples of Roman Art in one place.

I have been to the Louvre several times but like many vistors, I didn't pay much attention to the Roman works since there are so many other wonderful things to see there. Now here at the IMA, I was able to spend an entire day getting very close and studying intently all the works of this collection. Their placement and the overall exhibition design were created by the Louvre curators and the IMA staff and the result was a very visitor-friendly layout that allowed ample space to view the works from different angles and to stand and ponder them for as long as you would like.

One of the more interesting works was the bust of Antinous as Osiris (above). Antinous was the boyfriend of the emperor Hadrian. While Hadrian was a bear, Antinous was a stud pup. I knew of the story before, but when I stood face to face with Antinous I could see why Hadrian was so enamored with him. The photo above doesn't look as good as the bust does in real life. He should have been selected Mr. Gay Rome 130 A.D. if he hadn't died unexpectedly that year. As a consolation he was made a god and a city was named after him. Nowadays guys just get a sash and their picture taken.

The exhibition continues at the IMA through January 6, 2008, and then travels to Seattle and Oklahoma City before returning home to Paris.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

An article in the New York Times addressed the potential decline of gay enclaves in the United States. The article stated that there is an ongoing population shift for gay people away from well known places like San Francisco's Castro district and West Hollywood, to less expensive and less urban locations. Places like Louisville, El Paso, Albuquerque, and Virginia Beach are experiencing sharp increases in the number of same-sex couples. The article discusses why this is happening and what it may mean to gay culture.

The concern is that gay neighborhoods will become passé, and with their diminishment would come a decline in the sense of gay community, cohesiveness, and identity.

It seems unlikely that the gay cultural centers would actually dissipate. Consider the "Chinatowns" across North America. Those bastions of traditional Chines culture are quite alive even though ethnic Chinese people live everywhere else on the continent as well. Likewise, it should then be expected that large metro areas will continue to have a Boystown, even while the majority of gay people live elsewhere. They will continue to serve a function as a meeting place and a physical nexus for the gays in the wider geographic area, but not a place of exile from the rest of the country.

There should be no fear from seeing gays spread out. For one thing, there are too many to fit in the established gay ghettos and so it is a necessity that many find other places to live. Another thing is that gay people are like straight people too in that some people like to live in highly urban areas and other people like to live outside it. It is not hard to believe that many gays also dream about the proverbial house in the suburbs with the picket fence.

For me, I like to visit gay neighborhoods but I don't think I would be necessarily happy living in one. I know that when I travel I like to get a hotel near gay areas but not quite in it. I've pondered this attitude and the conclusion I have come to is that gay areas are barragingly gay, gay, gay, which is okay for a short period of time, but for people like me who see that attribute as only one of several that make them who they are, it can be stifling of all the other interesting things in life.

I don't like the stereotype that gays need to be city dwellers. The NYT article had a quote from a demographer: “'Twenty years ago, if you were gay and lived in rural Kansas, you went to San Francisco or New York,' he said. 'Now you can just go to Kansas City.'” At least there is an acknowledgment that gay people don't have to move to New York, but now there needs to be education that gay people live in rural Kansas also. I agree that it would not be as easy to live in the hinterland and I give those people credit. That's why I think that the verse about being able to make it anywhere if you can make it in New York seems kind of ludicrous. It would be more accurate to state that if you are gay and can make it in rural Kansas, you can make it anywhere.

Perhaps the theme song for young gays deciding where to live in the world should be R.E.M.'s Stand (in the place where you are).